Replies to This Discussion

Not at all, not at all, self perception is key here! I'm sure the American Humanist Association is happy for all your interest in their organisation no matter the definition. As for the survey, we're up to 53 participants.

I think I need to state what I understand to be the humanist philosophy, that is "What you see is all there is" and "We do not need to have a belief in a divine being to lead what would be traditionally regarded as a christian life." It's simple, easily understood and I believe, does not conflict with atheism.. or have I just been very lucky with my humanist contacts and information?

I both agree and disagree with your assessment. I think you're missing a particularly important part of Humanism, the human replaces god... Humanism is a religion of two categories religious and secular, but in fact, both are religious in nature. What present self-identified Humanists would like to see Humanism become, does not change what Humanism has been, or is, officially. I think a great many people also conflate the official doctrine of Humanism with a general humanitarian sentiment. My principal disagreement with Humanism, though it's only one point of many, is the ethical stance, that which reveals the most about any doctrine, and the ethics of Humanism are stated thus:

Ethics: We affirm that moral values derive their source from human experience

As a biologist, I simply cannot condone any doctrine which prioritizes human value above and beyond the intrinsic value of a balanced ecosystem, where all natural non technology modulated entities have equal systemic value.

I agree when you define Humanism "We do not need to have a belief in a divine being to lead what would be traditionally regarded as a christian life." That is also how I perceive Humanism, godless Christianity 'Abrahamism', which is why I disagree with it.

But anywho....

It's the reason I specified in the question 'self-identified'. When official Humanist organisations and publications list Humanist statistics, they don't distinguish people who may not be applying their own definition of it or not.

I don't know if I can accurately answer this question. I do subscribe to the ideal in many ways, but I was raised in a religious light and taught to be these things. I see and feel now that they are right for me and others.

Even if I was influenced--by religion-based morals--into being this way, does that mean that I can't genuinely call myself humanist? And if I recognize that it was because of that, yet I still subscribe to them without attributing it to something God would want me to do, does it negate that I've been influenced?

Also, I don't associate these ideals with any kind of organization political or religious.

-Of those, 63 (or 66) do not describe as agnostic, of which 85% are humanists.

-Agnostics too few to be statistically significant, and tend to answer both questions instead of one only.

I am flabbergasted at the 85%. I get a sense that in the USA, humanism is intimately entwined with atheists due to a large percentage of the population being brought up in a religious context and when "moving on", need to move on to another dogmatic group. But then again, atheism seems to be a young phenomenon in the USA, as far as gaining numbers goes, maybe that is the reason?

In my eyes atheism and humanism go hand in hand. Atheists don't believe in God, Humanists ignore the idea of God completely. Atheists believe we can have morals without religion, ditto Humanists. I would consider myself both, but more atheist because of the science aspect. I don't think Humanists care about science or where we came from. I did vote yes, because I'm more humanist than not.

My little survey has lasted long enough. The result is clear. 85% of T|A members who responded consider themselves Humanists. I find this quite depressing. I would think that people who claim to have an understanding of science would have a better level of realisation of the endless harms Homo sapiens has caused this planet through our anthropocentricism. IMO, Humanism offers absolutely nothing new to run this civilisation better than Christianity has. Humanism is but godless Christianity and is therefore in my eyes useless.

I am closing the survey and this discussion. Thank you for participating.